Debates of Feb. 25th, 1994

The Budget

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, under the headline "Cheap tricks for tawdry ends", the Globe and Mail made two allegations: First, the Minister of Finance has knowingly inflated the deficit of last fiscal year; second, a close analysis of government spending shows that the deficit for next year will not decrease, but will increase from $41.7 billion to $43.7 billion because of the measures announced in the most recent budget.

When will the Minister of Finance stop trying to delude the Canadian people? When will he stop covering up the fiasco in our public finances, which his budget is only making worse?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Treasury Board answered this question yesterday when he said that the spending increase this year results from the debt increase left to us unfortunately by the previous government.

Now, let me answer the first question which is identical to a previous one, but I understand how these things work. I just want to add that the editorial in the Globe and Mail also talks about the $2.4 billion stabilization claims received from the provinces. Unfortunately, in accordance with accounting principles, we are required to pay those liabilities once they are known. The same thing goes for the $250 million provision for the cancellation of the helicopter contract, which we dealt with in accordance with private sector accounting principles. With regard to the significant savings arising from the defence cuts, which amount to $450 million, we now know that we have to include them in this year's figures.

On the issue of accelerating income tax refunds, the truth is that we have to include that money in this year's budget since we are in the process of accelerating the refunds. We have followed to the letter the measures recommended by the Auditor General. I know full well that the critic for the Bloc Quebecois wants us to follow the dictates of the Auditor General, because he is always quoting him, and that is exactly what we have done.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance, who travelled throughout Canada saying that he was going to reduce the deficit, explain that, according to the Globe and Mail experts, other specialists and our own figures, next year's deficit will be the highest ever recorded in Canada, at almost $44 billion?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, all I can do is acknowledge the fact that we will have a record deficit of $45.7 billion this year, thanks to the previous government so well represented by my colleague. As I just said, between the expertise of the Globe and Mail and that of the Auditor General, we will choose the expertise of the Auditor General.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Secretary of State for Training and Youth.

On February 7 two hon. members asked questions regarding native self-government and policing on reserves. Later that day

the hon. secretary of state told CBC television: "Reformers are racist for asking such questions".

I want to know whether this is a policy of the government to label people who ask legitimate questions as racist, or merely a policy of the hon. secretary of state.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the policy of the government to label anyone racist, but it sure would be welcomed by the government to have members on the other side show full support for the inherent right to self-government and all other aspirations of aboriginal peoples.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do have policies on self-government for the native people.

The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had the courtesy yesterday of offering an apology. Will the hon. secretary of state follow suit and offer the same to this House today?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I will not offer my apology to members opposite because I believe that the questions I stated in my comments to the press were taken out of context by the hon. member.

Social Housing

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that the Minister of Finance recognized yesterday at a meeting with representatives from the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain that he had failed to keep his word by not providing any funds for social housing in the budget.

Would the Minister be willing to keep his word and reconsider his decision in order to restore the funds allocated to social housing?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. I think my colleague does not realize how serious a commitment this governement has towards social housing. We said repeatedly before this House that the governement had, for instance, committed $2 billion to maintain existing housing. I think that $2 billion is a substantial amount of money and so is the $2 million which is to be allocated to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. It is the same with other ongoing commitments which are going to be maintained. Therefore, there is nothing to reconsider. We have already made a serious commitment and we must go on from there. Of course, any positive comments and suggestions will be welcomed and carefully looked at in all fairness.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to my great regret, I must admit that our friends opposite lost their social awareness when they left the Opposition benches.

How can the minister maintain that the budget meets social housing needs, when the mayor of Montreal stated yesterday that all the mayors of major Canadian cities agree that the federal government cannot withdraw from its commitment?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, of course, each and every city and each and every mayor would like to have more. Of course, we will never be able to meet all existing needs. However, we must recognize that there is a commitment. We must admit that substantial amounts of money are allocated to social housing.

Your definition of social housing is probably different from ours because the commitment is there and the money is available.

Immigration

[Jean-Robert Gauthier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Deep concern was expressed by constituents of mine about the presence in Canada of one Hussein Sheik Abdiraham, a former minister of defence of deposed Somali leader, Siad Barre. In 1991 soldiers massacred hundreds of protesters opposed to that regime in Somali.

I would like to ask the minister of immigration to tell the House whether he has new evidence of wrongdoing by Sheik Abdiraham and, if so, are there sufficient grounds for a removal order to deport him under the Immigration Act regarding persons who have committed serious offences prior to coming to Canada?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and the interest he and other members have shown.

In his question, he alluded to the fact that the Immigration Act has a section which permits the government to remove senior officials and persons of any government that were part of serious human rights violations and atrocities. The government has confirmed that the Barre regime was one of those governments.

When the story broke on this individual I instructed my officials to collect the information from Nairobi where the application originated. We have now compiled the necessary information and I have instructed my officials to immediately write a report which will trigger an immigration inquiry before

an independent adjudicator. As the member knows, anyone who is found to have violated the act or broken any laws will be the subject of a removal.

Members Of Parliament

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

In a previous Question Period I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what was the purpose of a $200,000 consultant study on parliamentarians' compensation since the government had announced its policy previous to that. The answer provided was that the government needed more information.

I was surprised to see a letter in my office yesterday on letterhead reading "Commission to Review Allowances of Members of Parliament".

When the Deputy Prime Minister stood in the House to defend the need for a $200,000 consultant study, was she aware that the commission was going to be studying the very same topic?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the commission the hon. member spoke about is required to be set up after each election.

The government met the requirements of the law in setting up the commission. I am sure the study that the hon. member refers to will be a very useful input into the work of the commission.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the government's talk about jobs, jobs, jobs is more about perks, perks, perks. We have been spending $200,000 to date.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to advise the House what the cost is of studying the study, that is the cost of this commission to be put in place. I would also like to know if there is any limit to the number of studies the government plans to conduct on the same issue.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, the consultant study that he spoke about was commissioned and started by the previous government.

Second, the commission which my hon. friend is complaining about is one that has to be set up after each election, according to a law passed by Parliament. The government cannot ignore a decision of Parliament to set up such a commission after each election.

My hon. friend asked for the cost of this. This is a detailed technical question which he probably should have put on the Order Paper. In order to respond to him in a full and courteous way, I will take his question as notice and get him the information as soon as possible. In future I suggest that he check on the requirements of the law before asking that type of questionable question.

Illegal Weapons Seizures On Mohawk Territory

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Based on documents tabled by the federal prosecutor for the Rutland district, in Vermont, the CBC alleged yesterday that, in 1992, arms dealers, two of them from Kahnawake, supplied 700 to 900 automatic weapons to organized crime in Canada. These guns were used to commit major crimes in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.

Can the Solicitor General tell us whether he plans to intervene in Mohawk territory and seize all the illegal weapons located there, and which are used by organized crime in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, according to the same report, police forces, including the RCMP, have already seized about one hundred weapons which had been supplied by that same network presently standing trial in the United States.

It is because this government is quite aware of the problems connected with major smuggling networks, dealing not only in cigarettes but also in firearms, that it launched an anti-smuggling action plan only three months after it came to power. We intend to enforce the law everywhere in Canada and I am confident that the RCMP took all appropriate measures in this instance.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Solicitor General's answer. In support of his comments, and in view of the numerous crimes which were committed lately, could he give us at least one recent example of an arrest and prosecution case for possession of illegal arms on Mohawk territory?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the hon. member keeps on raising the Mohawk issue instead of asking questions on criminal activity in this country. If he were really interested in fighting crime across the nation, he would use different wordings in his questions.

Immigration

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I ask this question believing that Canadians deserve to know on what the government bases its policies.

On the 14th of this month the minister of immigration said I was incorrect in concluding that the Economic Council of Canada report argues for a 1994 immigration level of approximately 180,000 immigrants, 70,000 fewer than the government intends to accept.

Could the minister please cite for me the exact number of immigrants the Economic Council of Canada study recommends be accepted into Canada in 1994?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Quite gladly, Mr. Speaker. The Economic Council of Canada suggested the approximate 1 per cent figure. It also advocates a gradual approach toward that 1 per cent, and that is what I had cited before and is what I cite today.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the Economic Council of Canada report cites a 1 per cent figure, I believe over a 25-year span. Perhaps the minister should dedicate more time to studying his portfolio and less time to just talking about it.

Will the minister agree to stop misleading the people by suggesting that he has specific evidence on which he bases immigration policy? Will he agree to cede to the will of the overwhelming majority of Canadians instead of the desires of a few special interests?